On May 10, 7:12=A0pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 10, 5:07=A0pm, RichAsianKid <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 9:26 pm,israeliteknight<israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 3:40 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 7, 10:25 pm, pg <pen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am,RichAsianKid<richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > Let's use common sense when we compare the chinks with the dots,
o=
kay?
>
> > > > > Chinks are fakers and copiers. Chinks can not think out of the
box=
.. In
> > > > > fact, Chinks prefer to box themselves in (look at chinatown all
ov=
er
> > > > > the world and you know what I mean)
>
> > > > > Chinks can not innovate. Chinks have all the 5,000 years of
burden=
to
> > > > > carry, that "Con****ius" burden alone has destroyed millions of
Chi=
nks'
> > > > > outlook in life.
>
> > > > > Dots, on the other hand, prefer to see beyond the horizon. Yes,
yo=
u
> > > > > can say that they are dreamers, but the Dots are more than MERE
> > > > > DREAMING, they are working towards their dream.
>
> > > > > Dots prefer to think OUT of the box. They innovate, they focus
on
> > > > > inventing things for the future.
>
> > > > > While the Dots have also a long, long history, they refused to
be
> > > > > burdened by it. True, the Dots have a caste system. While others
m=
ay
> > > > > see it as a hindrance, I see it as a boost.
>
> > > > > A caste system effectively preventing those low IQ people from
get=
ting
> > > > > more than their fair share of what a society can give them.
>
> > > > > The caste system in India is actually the opposite of
theAffirmati=
ve
> > > > >Actionof the USA. In USA, you have low IQ blacks getting into
Harva=
rd
> > > > > and Princeton and UCLA and MIT, just because they are black, and
> > > > > nothing else.
>
> > > > > The actual working of caste system in India (if the Indian
governm=
ent
> > > > > don't **** it up) is that those low IQ tribe WILL NEVER BE
ALLOWED=
to
> > > > > abuse the meritocratic operation of the human hierarchy ... In
oth=
er
> > > > > word, if you are stupid, stay stupid and don't come into the
smart=
> > > > > world.
>
> > > > > Cruel? You bet ! But all of us live in a cruel world.
>
> > > > > Utopia isn't reality. The "utopian" political correct world that
m=
any
> > > > > US bleeding hearts believe in is actually killing the US of A.
You=
> > > > > im****t tons and tons of useless idiots into your country, and
they=
> > > > > keep on producing even more little useless idiots. You end up in
a=
> > > > > situation whereby the SMART MINORITY has to work VERY HARD to
feed=
the
> > > > > STUPID M***** !!!
>
> > > > > If that is not bad enough, you guys promote the STUPID to become
> > > > > judge. Still remember that black judge who sue the Korean
laundry =
for
> > > > > tens of millions? Who the **** that nigger think he is?? How the
f=
uck
> > > > > that nigger becomes a judge, in the first place???
>
> > > > > Ask yourself the above questions and you know why your country,
th=
e US
> > > > > of A, is sinking.
>
> > > > > Back to the Chinks and the Dots.
>
> > > > > The Chinks are egalitarian in nature --- in other words, Chinks
ar=
e
> > > > > more like the bleeding heart liberals of the USA. They believe
tha=
t
> > > > > through hard work, everyone should be enjoying the equal share
of =
the
> > > > > society.
>
> > > > > That is why SMART Chinks work doubly hard to help their STUPID
> > > > > cousins. Smart Chinks should have been putting their time and
effo=
rt
> > > > > into making themselves EVEN SMARTER ... but the damn 5,000 years
o=
f
> > > > > burden made them think otherwise.
>
> > > > > For Chink, if they do not help their stupid cousins, they would
ha=
ve
> > > > > that "I'm a bad guy" conscience weighting down on them. So they
pu=
t
> > > > > their best to help out their stupid cousins.
>
> > > > > In doing so, the SMART Chinks are not smart anymore. They wasted
t=
heir
> > > > > precious life in helping those who ought to have died much
earlier=
,
> > > > > due to their own stupidity, in the first place.
>
> > > > > On the other hand, the SMART Dots don't have that burden on
them. =
They
> > > > > just let their idiot cousins die on the the road side, which is,
i=
n
> > > > > the real world sense, FAIR.
>
> > > > > You go see the animals in Savannah. Do you see healthy
wilderbeast=
> > > > > trying to help the sick wilderbeast, and ended up being killed
> > > > > themselves???
>
> > > > > Of course NOT !!! Law of the nature is fixed --- that if you are
> > > > > stupid, if you are weak, if you are sick, YOU ARE GONE !!!
>
> > > > > But Human Beings thought that they are no longer animal. (Are
they=
> > > > > trees???) They think that they have to help the weak, the poor,
th=
e
> > > > > sick, the IDIOTS. Sure, helping all those asshole and you end up
d=
ead
> > > > > yourself.
>
> > > > > That is why the Dots have it in the right place. They just leave
t=
hose
> > > > > who are to be gone, gone at their own pace. The Smart Dots put
all=
> > > > > their time and effort to MAKE THEMSELVES BETTER.
>
> > > > > Which in itself a good thing.
>
> > > > > Why? Because if the SMART PEOPLE BETTER THEMSELVES, they become
ev=
en
> > > > > Smarter. And a country as large as India, with burdgeoning
populat=
ion
> > > > > (soon to surpass that of China), need TRULY, TRULY SMART PEOPLE
to=
> > > > > chart its future.
>
> > > > > China, on the other hand, is being ruled by a bunch of idiotic
> > > > > mother****ers. Mother****ers who think they can rule the world
by
> > > > > hosting the stupid Olympics.
>
> > > > > Now, China is ahead of India. China is ahead because of the
SMART
> > > > > Chinese living OUTSIDE of China went back to help their IDIOT
cous=
ins
> > > > > left behind.
>
> > > > > But SMART Chinese are limited in number. As soon as those SMART
> > > > > Chinese ran out of their resources, their idiotic cousins took
ove=
r.
> > > > > When their idiotic Chinese start to chart the course for China,
yo=
u'll
> > > > > see that China will NOT go forward anymore.
>
> > > > > In fact, it will go back, back, and BACK !!!
>
> > > > > The hosting of the Olympics is but the FIRST SIGN of China going
> > > > > backward. They wasted so much of their time, efforts, and
resource=
s to
> > > > > host that stupid game.
>
> > > > > The time, efforts and resources that could have been used to
make
> > > > > China even better.
>
> > > > > But no. Them idiotic Chinks think otherwise. They think they can
r=
ule
> > > > > the damn ****ing world by hosting the Olympics.
>
> > > > > So what do you get? Red flags flying all over. For what the
****??=
?
>
> > > > > What has that to do with making China better? NOTHING !!!!
>
> > > > > India, on the other hand, do no such thing. They knew better
than =
to
> > > > > host that stupid Olympic. Instead, they use their limited
resource=
s
> > > > > into building MORE universities, training MORE of their smart
peop=
le
> > > > > to be even MORE smart, helping MORE of their people to compete
MOR=
E
> > > > > efficiently in the world, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
>
> > > > > Do you see Indian flags flying all over the world? No. Why not?
> > > > > Because that ain't gonna help India a bit.
>
> > > > > Unlike the stupid Chinks, the Dots understand that to TRULY BE
NUM=
BER
> > > > > 1, they have to work doubly hard. They have to have THE NUMBER 1
H=
UMAN
> > > > > RESOURCES to invent things, to innovate, to be technologically
> > > > > SUPERIOR !!!
>
> > > > > So the Dots are investing all they have to ensure that they will
e=
xcel
> > > > > in technology, that they have to be ahead of the USA, JAPAN and
> > > > > EUROPE, in the technological fields.
>
> > > > > The Dots are doing this, while we speak. In the meantime, the
Chin=
ks
> > > > > are still waving their red-flags.
>
> > > > > Perhaps you and I could never live to see the world where the
Dots=
are
> > > > > in front of the Chinks, but one day, maybe your children and my
> > > > > children will see that.
>
> > > > > I'm a Chink myself, and I'm telling you all these not because
I'm
> > > > > ashame of my own people. I'm telling you these because I am
FULLY
> > > > > AWARE of the UTTER STUPIDITY of my own people.
>
> > > > > In conclusion,
>
> > > > > The product of Chinks are visible --- goods in boxes.
>
> > > > > The product of Dots are invisible --- strength, ideas,
intellectua=
l
> > > > > properties.
>
> > > > > Which product is better, my friend??
>
> > > > You=92re quite right that the product of the Dots are
**invisible** =
-- I
> > > > (we) still don=92t see it!! Their ideas, their intellectual
properti=
es?
> > > > Oh really? Based on what we know about the sore lack of Indian
> > > > cognitive capital =96 from their low IQs to their well-known 39%
> > > > illiteracy rate to how their own children are 2-3 years behind
> > > > international standards in elementary school education =96 not
just =
in
> > > > poorer districts but also in private schools -- you=92d never have
> > > > guessed they=92re bubbling with geniuses waiting to be discovered
wo=
uld
> > > > you? Don=92t worry, I=92ll provide some links for your
edification. =
But
> > > > let=92s look at a few other points first as to what you wrote.
>
> > > > It appears that poster =91pg=92 is yet again imbued with idealism
an=
d a
> > > > lot of what is written here about India=92s greatness is, once
again=
,
> > > > rooted in the future tense. Guess hope springs eternal huh? Still,
a=
> > > > bird in hand is worth two in the bush. What=92s potential is not
wha=
t=92s
> > > > actual. India=92s still pining for some real or imaginary future
whi=
le
> > > > *compared to India*, China already is. You see this in anecdotal
> > > > accounts of Indian students and international travelers. I=92m not
> > > > saying China is a great country. What I=92m merely stating is an
obv=
ious
> > > > fact: if China is ****, then India is ****ier.
>
> > > > You then raised points about how the caste system and
egalitarianism=
> > > > and alluded to the lower castes of India being low IQ. But
that=92s
> > > > point conceded: there are lots and lots of these lower caste
Indians=
> > > > that the upper castes have to keep them out. From previous
exchanges=
> > > > Indian posters (and I believe some Indian visiting professors too)
> > > > know this deep down and have expressed that the best that India
can
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's an update on the analysis of SAT scores, which can be seen in
the proper format at:
http://christianparty.net/satrace2004.htm
SAT Score for actual Whites is 162 points higher than re****ted by the
College Board.
What they re****t as a 202 point gap between blacks and Whites is
actually a 424 point gap between White men and black women.
States which are mostly Whites score 100 to 153 points higher than the
"national average" for Whites.
Whites in Iowa score 154 points higher than "whites" in New York.
Based on the racial composition of Iowa, the highest scoring state
with an SAT score of 1195, New York, one of the lowest scoring states
at 1007, and Wa****ngton, DC, ground zero in intellectual achievement
on EVERY test imaginable at 965, and the SAT scores re****ted by race,
we should see scores of 1052, 1003, and 934 respectively. This means
that Iowa=92s actual score was 134 points higher than its racial
composition would suggest it should be, New York=92s was 4 points
higher, and DC=92s was 31 points higher.
In other words, if the SAT scores provided by the College Board for
SAT scores by each race are correct, we would expect Iowa to score
1048 rather than 1195, we would expect New York to score 1003 rather
than 1007, and we would expect DC to score 934 rather than 965.
Indian
Asian
black
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Hispanic
White
jew
Mamzer
Pre dicted
Actual
Diff
SAT Score
971
1084
857
909
909
926
1059
860
1002
Iowa
0.40%
1.60%
2.5%
3.80%
91%
0%
1%
N.Y.
0.50%
6.90%
17.4%
16.30%
57%
0%
1.50%
100%
D.C.
0.4%
3.2%
56.5%
0%
0%
8.20%
30.3%
0.%
1.40%
100%
Iowa
3.9
17.3
21.4
0.0
0.0
35.2
960.5
0.0
10.0
1048
1195
-147
N.Y.
4.9
74.8
149.1
0.0
0.0
150.9
607.9
0.0
15.0
1003
1007
-4
D.C.
3.9
34.7
484.2
0.0
0.0
75.9
320.9
0.0
14.0
934
965
-31
If all else is equal except the score of Whites, then the SAT score
for Whites in Iowa must be 1221 [162 points higher than the national
average for Whites], the SAT score for Whites in N.Y. must be 1067 [8
points higher], and the SAT scores for Whites in DC must be 1163 [104
points higher than the national average].
And the SAT score for actual Whites in the nation must be 1221 rather
than the 1059 re****ted by the College Board, which means they
misrepresent White intellectual talent by 162 points, and that the gap
between Whites and blacks is 364 points rather than 202 points.
How can it be, though, that the White Race in Iowa scores 154 points
higher than the White Race in New York, 58 points higher than the
White Race in DC, and 162 points higher than the score for Whites
re****ted by the College Board? How can this be rationalized or
explained?
Because Whites are a majority in Iowa, their scores must be higher
than Iowa=92s average of 1195. Because blacks are now only 56% of the
population of DC and Whites are 38.4%, it's not completely unexpected
that the average score for DC of 965 is 108 points higher than the
average score for blacks of 857. It's revealing, though, that blacks
in the =93state=94 which spends more per capita for =93education=94 than
any=
other part of the globe [five times as much per student as Iowa], and
have the absolutely highest per capita incomes for blacks anywhere in
the world, and have more police protection and more different forms of
police and have the world's toughest gun control and drug war laws
than most dictators, would score LOWER than Mozambique. But this is
what international tests like IAEP have shown.
The answer is jews.
Because jews demanded in the 1960=92s that they not be counted as a
separate race, we don=92t know the exact population of jews in either DC
or New York. Because Whites are only 91% and Asians are only 1.6% of
Iowa=92s population, if Whites there score 1221, then Iowa=92s calculated
score is exactly 1195. But in order to explain the very low score of
DC where blacks are only 56.5% of the population, we must assume that
at least 4.5% of the population there are jews who score closer to
their brethren in Israel than to any local populations.
Viola. That fits the equation perfectly, giving DC a calculated score
of exactly 965, exactly as re****ted by the SAT.
If that's not the case [if there are no jews who participate in SAT in
DC], then the only way to explain why DC's actual score is 18 points
lower than predicted is that the score of blacks in DC is only 826,
which is 31 points lower than the national average for blacks. IAEP
suggests that's possible.
But what about this whopping 154 point difference between Whites in
Iowa and =93whites=94 [note lower case =91w=92] in New York?
jews.
Jews themselves claim there are 6 million jews in the US and that 4.6
million are in New York. If so, this might mean that 24% of New
Yorkers who are listed as Whites are actually jews who score in the
range of their brethren in Israel rather than in the range of our
brethren in Germany or Ireland.
In order for the calculated score for New York to match its actual
score, the percentage of jews there must be 24.5%, producing a score
of exactly 1007, exactly what the actual SAT score is.
So by claiming that the SAT score for Whites is only 1059, the College
Board misrepresents our intellectual advantage by 162 points, and they
make it appear that the gap between Whites and blacks is 202 points
rather than 364 points. And it's not just Iowa which is
misrepresented. South Dakota scores 1191, which is 132 points higher
than the national average for Whites, Wisconsin scores 1183, 124
points higher, North Dakota scores 124 points higher, Illinois scores
123 points higher, Minnesota scores 121 points higher, Missouri scores
113 points higher, etc.
Furthermore, this also ignores that ever since SAT began, within each
race, there's been a consistent 58-60 point gap between the ***es.
Actually, the gap is 60 points for Whites, blacks, Mexicans,
Hispanics, Asians, and Indians, and only 58 points for Puerto Ricans
[a difference which is actually within the standard error].
So where public perception is that there's only a 202 point gap
between Whites and blacks, the REAL gap between White men and black
women is 364 points + 60 points, or 424 points, virtually the opposite
ends of the spectrum.
|
